>
> My son is considering each of the 4 scopes above. His usage will be
> almost entirely "visual" with no imaging, from a relatively fixed
> location in average S.E. PA light polution (maybe mag 4 -5) on good
> nights. His interest is 30 % planetary/70% DSO.
>
> He leaning toward the 8" (pricewise) but can affoed the 7" Mak. Then
> the cunundrum arrises -- why not the 10" -- still less money than the
> Mak.
>
> So I guess the question is where does the Mak fit in to the scheme of
> things, and would it's higher price be of any benifit to him (with
> his interests and location).
> Best regards,
>
> Frank Loch

Hi, Frank,

I would consider the Mak a specialty instrument and not really the
best choice for a general usage telescope. It's great in its niche but not
especially good for beautiful views of, say, h and chi Persei. I seem to
have very much a minority opinion on the list: I have an awful lot of
years of amateur observing under my belt and having used high focal ratio
scopes and local ratio scopes of the same aperture, I can't understand why
anyone wouldn't go with the lower focal ratio. To me, the bottom line in
observing any object is developing the best field of view to provide the
best visual appearance. With a scope of lower focal ratio, it's obviously
much easier to get those fabulous wide field views that make, e.g., M42,
M35, M81 and M82, and (as mentioned) h and chi Persei so beautiful. You
say you lose when you try to go to higher mags versus the f/10 scope
because of the size of the secondary? Hmm. I have to say that only the
most perspicacious of observers would be able to tell the difference
between well collimated scopes of identical optical quality and probably
only then when side by side.

And you know what? More than anything else, I would say its a matter
of taste. I love the wide field views I get with my 10" f/6.3 and a 35 mm
TV Panoptic (cool as all get out) and I find it easy to change EPs to get
the best FOV for viewing any object. In fact, I usually run thru my entire
stock of EPs for each object viewed just to see how the perspective
changes. Perhaps the most telling point is that I was often a bit
disappointed before I got my 35mm Panoptic - the FOV was just too narrow
to make me comfortable on many DSOs. In addition, I find the planetary and
lunar views spectacular when the seeing is good but these are *not* my
major interest. Betcha dupa you're going to hear from others just as
passionate about their f/10 scopes.

Don't let anyone fool you, though: Aperture rules. It's true that a
smaller scope might get you out more but I find the views of DSOs thru the
10" much more pleasing than thru an 8". No contest for me, but I would say
it depends on your personal lugging threshold. I look like a gorilla (much
less hairy, though) so moving the 10" is no big deal for me. 8" or 10" is
an interesting question. Again, it depends on the person. There's no
simple answer. Isn't that a bummer?

Regards,

Greg Hartke
Sykesville, MD

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: [M]: [slightly OT] Lunar GOTO beta 1.0 debugs Rob's brain, Email address hidden
Next message: [M]: Polar alignment, Email address hidden
Next message in thread: Re: [M]: [M] Choose which?(lx200) 8", 10", or 7" Mak???, Jesh
Previous message in thread: Re: [M]: [M] Choose which?(lx200) 8", 10", or 7" Mak???, Michael J. Cook